SZTHP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 122

SZTHP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 122

Leave to appeal was refused and the application dismissed because the proposed grounds had no merit, largely restated the applicant's protection claims, disclosed no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal and no appealable error by the primary judge, and no substantial injustice would result from refusal of leave. The Tribunal had assessed credibility and it was reasonably open to it to reject the applicant's claims on the material before it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of Judicial Review Application / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'leave to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'credibility Assessment']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'leave to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'credibility Assessment']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Application for Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of Judicial Review Application / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Federal Circuit Court's interlocutory dismissal of the applicant's judicial review application." 'Whether the proposed grounds disclosed jurisdictional error by the Refugee Review Tribunal or appealable error by the primary judge.' "Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant's credibility or erred in rejecting his protection claims."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused and the application dismissed because the proposed grounds had no merit, largely restated the applicant's protection claims, disclosed no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal and no appealable error by the primary judge, and no substantial injustice would result from refusal of leave. The Tribunal had assessed credibility and it was reasonably open to it to reject the applicant's claims on the material before it.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed."]